| Log on for L.T.
Junior tailback LaDainian Tomlinson is officially the best running back in the nation. His 1,850 rushing yards are highest in the nation, and Tomlinson's 168.2 yards a game average also ranks No. 1 in the country. But some people still seem to look past Tomlinson when stacking up the nation's premier running backs. The purple-clad fans of TCU have probably noticed that Tomlinson broke the Frogs' single-season rushing record and tied the TCU single-season touchdown mark with 18. Many of the Western Athletic Conference coaches have made note of Tomlinson's WAC record for rushing yards in a season by awarding him with five WAC Offensive Player of the Week awards this year. Despite Tomlinson's 406 yards against the University of Texas-El Paso - a NCAA Division I-A record - the national media have ignored his season altogether. They say Tomlinson plays weak competition, citing games against Arkansas State University and the University of North Texas. However, Tomlinson is one of the three finalists for the 1999 Dr Pepper Doak Walker Award, given to the top running back in the nation. By logging on to ESPN.com, fans have a chance to help choose the winner. The results of the poll will count as one official vote on the ballot. The rest of the 189 votes will be cast from the Dr Pepper Doak Walker Award National Selection Committee. Even if Tomlinson doesn't win the award, maybe we can get the nation to look beyond its frame of reference and notice the Horned Frogs in Fort Worth.
A life for a life upholds justice Putting people to death who are guilty of committing extremely heinous crimes is an ancient practice, but it has become quite controversial in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century. Changing views of the issue led the Supreme Court to abolish capital punishment in 1972 but to reinstate it - with certain conditions - in 1977. Yet many voices are still raised against capital punishment. Heated public debate centers on questions of deterrence, sentencing equity, the execution of innocents and costs, among others. I have listened to and read the arguments opposing the death penalty - including a column by Zachary Norris that appeared in the Skiff Nov. 9 - and I find they are not at all convincing. Here's why: In his column, Norris wrote, " There exists no evidence supporting the claim that the death penalty deters potential murderers." First, during the 1972-1976 suspension on capital punishment, researcher Karl Spence, of Texas A&M University, gathered murder statistics from across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the United States and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, when there were no executions, 14,590 murders occurred, and in 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. Therefore, the number of murders grew as the number of executions dwindled, Spence concluded. In another argument, Norris stated, "The death penalty is inflicted disproportionately on minorities and the poor." But a 1991 Rand Corporation study found that white murderers received the death penalty slightly more often - 32 percent - than non-white murderers - 27 percent. And Patrick Lanagan, a senior statistician at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, said, "I don't find evidence that the justice system is treating blacks and whites differently." Norris also argues that the death penalty has been used in error: " Recent research by Hugo Adam Bedau has shown that 23 people are known to have died wrongfully at the hands of the death penalty in America since 1900 Therefore, because of the imperfections of the judicial system, the death penalty should be replaced by life imprisonment in the United States." It seems a valid point, but most of us know that far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. For instance, more than 600 repeat offenses occur within prison walls each year in this country, and more than 13,000 American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals, some of whom were convicted for murder. I fully agree with Norris on one of his arguments: "Because of the extent that the legal system is involved in the application of the death penalty and its aftermath, the cost of putting a prisoner to death is higher than life imprisonment without parole." All the statistics show this fact. But the cost for justice does not have to be so high for the execution of murderers. If we allowed only appeals that are relevant in proving one's innocence and eliminated the many more that are used merely as delaying tactics, it would save millions in taxpayer dollars. But I will be the first to admit that several reforms must still be made in our justice system so that the death penalty can cause a more positive effect. Nonetheless, I am still "all for it." In fact, those electrical currents need to flow much more often. Otherwise, we are saying to victims, "Your life was worthless." As a society, we owe it to them and to their loved ones to ensure that all murderers are punished fully. When a society ignores its moral duty to defend the safety and security of its decent citizens and leaves them at the mercy of violent criminals, it is not being "civilized." Instead, it is being negligent.
Kristen Naquin is a senior news-editorial journalism major from Pensacola, Fla. She can be reached at (knaquin1@aol.com). This column was an assignment for the Opinion Writing class. Chase goals worth pursuing I have a turtle. His name is Ed. Ed lives in a terrarium on my kitchen bar that also serves as my table and my desk. Most of the time, he just sits there and stares at me while I do my work. But every once in a while, Ed comes alive, standing up on his two hind legs and feebly scratching on the glass with his front claws. I noticed one day when he erupted with such energy. It happened when I picked up my bright yellow highlighter. You see, Ed thinks my highlighter looks delicious. If I set it too close the cage, Ed will eye it for a second or two, slowly open his mouth as he cocks back his head, then slam his nose into the glass as he tries to take a bite. I really don't know what it is about that highlighter that gets him so excited. He doesn't get nearly as stoked when he spots a tomato (which he actually eats), and he will even refuse to eat the squash I bought him that is about the same color as the highlighter. I find it strange that he will put little or no energy into reaching for something that will actually nourish him, but he will knock himself over onto his back or give himself a bloody nose to gain something that he will ultimately find holds no value to him at all. Then again, Ed is a turtle. His puny little turtle brain is his excuse for that futile pursuit. I'm not sure what our excuse is when we do the same thing. I remember sitting and watching a Shania Twain video with a good friend of mine three years ago. He was very content at the time with his relationship with a very nice, pretty young lady. I will never forget what he said as he watched Shania's video. "It's girls like that," he said, "that makes it so hard for us guys to commit to the girls we're with." He was saying men don't want to commit to the woman they are dating because maybe, just maybe, there is a better-looking woman out there who would be willing to take her place. Why is that a factor? Why would the outside possibility that somewhere there exists some gorgeous, willing woman have any bearing on a man's current relationship? It's because embedded somewhere in every man's brain is the notion that his happiness in a relationship is directly proportional to the physical beauty of the woman he is with. Women really aren't any better. I have spent my 4 1/2 years of college watching scores of nice guys finish last in the dating game, while arrogant, rich, boorish, "exciting" guys break heart after heart, always with a new woman eagerly awaiting her turn. But from relationships to ambitions to every other part of life, everyone has a little bit of Ed the Turtle in him. We willingly pass up that which is nourishing in favor of something shiny. So many of us spend our college lives pursuing something we believe will make us rich, famous or fulfill our vain ideas of self-expression. Half of the seniors I've met look forward to their graduation with happiness only for the fact that they are getting out of school, not because they are anxious to start doing what they've spent the last four or five years of their lives preparing to do. Why is there such a complete lack of enthusiasm toward doing what they've told themselves and everyone else that they want to do? It's because we too often react like an animal in pursuit of something that appears desirable without asking ourselves what we would really gain if we get it. An African missionary once said, "He is no fool that forfeits that which he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." But students waste their time in college and in life chasing something that will not fulfill them while they're alive and will be no more alive than they are when they're in their graves. When you find yourself on your back again, bloody from trying to gain a prize that you've set before you, take time to ask yourself what you are really pursuing and why. Make sure your effort is pointed toward something that will nourish your souls as well as your senses. Even Ed sets aside his quest for the highlighter and takes a bite of tomato every now and then.
Stephen Suffron is a graduating senior broadcast journalism major from League City, Texas. He can be reached at (sdsuffron@delta.is.tcu.edu). City growth needs restricting Imagine a large meadow, a vista of rolling acres, softly blowing grasses and maybe a few head of cattle dotting the landscape. Now, imagine plowing over that meadow to build a subdivision of cheaply-built tract housing, shopping centers and convenience stores. This is a scenario that is being reproduced with alarming regularity around the country. Granted, it is true that the cities are still growing rapidly, creating a burgeoning need for more affordable housing. According to a March 1999 report from the United States Census Bureau, Tarrant County grew by nearly 30,000 people over a one-year period from July 1997 to July 1998, a trend that is projected to continue. With these figures, the idea of preserving the majority of "green space" like that meadow is somewhat optimistic. However, cities are not doing enough to curb the unchecked growth, allowing developers to plow through the system and make their money, and certain voices within the media are still trying to perpetuate the myth that it is a non-issue. A good example of this involves a law passed in 1973 in Oregon, requiring cities and counties to set permanent boundary limits in order to restrict growth to existing areas. This law has been upheld, and in the city of Portland, it has served as a catalyst for urban redevelopment and preservation of open space. But Lee Cullum, in her Nov. 14 column for the Dallas Morning News, says that setting limits such as those in Oregon only serves to "deny too many people what they want - a suburban life." Cullum cites figures from Fort Bend County, near Houston, where lenient development regulations have resulted in lower home prices, making it easier for newcomers to buy a home and developers to provide infrastructure and retail/restaurant centers for neighborhoods. Cullum is correct that this kind of freedom does provide opportunities for people who would otherwise not be able to afford a bigger house in an upper-middle-class neighborhood. But many of those people in Sugar Land and other Fort Bend County communities enjoying the "free use of property" Cullum speaks about still have to commute to the city of Houston for their jobs. This commute, from the suburb to the city and back, is choking the area's major arteries with traffic and leading to the many ozone action days that have plagued the Houston area for over a decade. Meanwhile, back in inner-city Houston, the infrastructure continues to crumble and the crime rate remains high as the effects of "white flight" continue to be felt decades after it first began. A recent APBnews.com survey indicated that the neighborhood around the University of Houston, located in one of the city's older urban areas, ranked in the top 25 highest-crime areas around four-year colleges in the United States. Why does Cullum seem to think that all of the dollars spent on suburban sprawl aren't necessarily more needed for urban redevelopment in places like that? The problem in Houston may serve as the example listed here, but it exists here in Dallas/Fort Worth and beyond to other cities across the country. Other states are taking notice, and voters have been approving legislation to regulate this kind of growth. Cullum cites a "smart growth" initiative passed in 1997 in Maryland to reserve money for infrastructure improvements for pre-existing communities and a successful 1998 proposal in New Jersey that allows the state to purchase and preserve a million acres of undeveloped property in the state. Cullum writes, though, that this kind of structured growth planning is not needed in Texas. In fact, she adamantly insists that suburban sprawl is just a fact of life in a growing state like Texas. "Development, in and outside metropolitan areas, is unavoidable," she says. This may be a fact, but the state legislature needs to work to keep that development carefully controlled, and pass legislation to foster redevelopment of urban areas rather than development on the site of what was yet another meadow.
Alan Melson is a senior broadcast journalism major from Richardson, Texas. He can be reached at (mamelson@delta.is.tcu.edu). This column was an assignment for the Opinion Writing class. |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |